Benudhar Dansena vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 743 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               CRR No. 463 of 2014

      Benudhar Dansena S/o Panchram Dansena Aged About 44 Years R/o
      Village Amoda, Police Station Baramkela, Civil And Revenue District
      Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---- Applicant
                                    Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh through the Incharge Police Chowki Jute Mill,
      District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board 06-02-2023

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of

the Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal

No.202000003252014 dated 28.6.2014 whereby the appeal preferred

by the present applicant has been dismissed and the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court has

been affirmed. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced as

under:-

               Conviction                     Sentence
             Under Section 337               RI for 1 month and to pay fine
             of the Indian Penal             of Rs.500/- and in default of
             Code.                           payment of fine, additional
                                             R.I. for 15 days.
             Under Section 338               RI for 1 year and to pay fine
             of the Indian Penal             of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
             Code.                           payment of fine, additional
                                             R.I. for 30 days.

With a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

In the appeal, the conviction has been maintained whereas, the

sentence part under Section 338 of the IPC has been reduced from

1 year to 3 months R.I.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.5.2010 at about 8:00

pm in village Patelpali, the present applicant while driving the bus

bearing registration No. C.G. 13ZA 0120 dashed the motorcycle of the

complainant - Rana Nishad, who sustained grievous injuries including

fracture of his right leg. The police investigated the matter and after

completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial

Court framed charges against the applicant under Sections 279, 337 &

338 of the IPC, who in turn, abjured the charges and pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 11

documents to prove the guilt of the applicant. No defence witness was

examined by the applicant. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

of the applicant was recorded where the applicant took the plea of false

implication only. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as

mentioned in the opening paragraph.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no

minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC

and there was only one fracture which has been proved by Dr. Sunil

Ratre (PW-11). He would further submit that the applicant has already

remained in jail from 28.6.2014 to 31.7.2014 i.e. for more than a month.

He would also pray to reduce the sentence as awarded by the learned

Court below to the period already undergone by the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the

submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record with utmost circumspection.

6. The accident has been proved and the same has not been disputed by

the present applicant. There was fracture of right leg which has been

proved by Dr. Sunil Ratre (PW-11) and also the same has also not been

disputed by the present applicant.

7. Considering the fact that there is no minimum sentence prescribed

under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC and the applicant has already

remained in jail for more than 1 month i.e. from 28.6.2014 to 31.7.2014;

therefore, the conviction of the present applicant is affirmed; the

sentence part is reduced under Section 338 of the IPC from 3 months to

the period already undergone by the applicant, thereby enhancing the

fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/-

respectively. The enhanced fine amount would be payable to the victim

in accordance with Section 357A of the Cr.P.C.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the criminal revision is disposed of. It is

reported that the present applicant is on bail. There is no need to

surrender and his bail bonds will remain effective for a further period of 6

months according to Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. Enhanced amount of

fine would be deposited by the present applicant within a period of 3

months from today failing which, he would suffer the sentence recorded

by the learned Sessions Court.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi